You people will get your nose bent out of shape at any goddamn thing, won't you?

Gender shouldn't matter when it comes to writing code, period. Turns out, it does in some ways that are not good for the industry as a whole. We're missing about half the insight that the inconvenient gender (aka "women") could bring to the table if the tech industry wasn't a sweaty jock party.

So, Google is trying to do something about it. Might be the *wrong* thing (I don't think so, but I'm not omnipotent) but at least THEY ARE TRYING TO DO *SOMETHING*, which is a lot more than I see any of you other meatsacks doing. You can either start being part of the solution, or just go to Hell.

If it gets more women coding, then more power to them.

If it gets more women in tech, more power to them.

If it will shut up your goddamn special snowflake whining, full power to them.

I won't pretend it's for mankind or science or anything like that - I'd be doing it because people would remember my name for having done something somewhat insane, with few harmful side-effects. That mankind would benefit or science would benefit is great, but it would be a side-effect.

Because I could carve a plaque that said "I was here first, bitch. Suck on that, you second-place losers." I would do my damndedst to ensure that I was remembered not only as the First Man On Mars, but also biggest, most insufferable d-bag at the same time.

The inherent non-acceptability of Google Glass was somewhat predicted by Snow Crash over 20 years ago. One of the characters, a "gargoyle" walks around in full-recording mode at all times, trying to capture every bit of information possible. The description, as given, is at best neutral and my takeaway was that it wasn't considered a positive thing by other information gatherers of that world.

I think the broader question is why does the fact that its a game warrant some higher editorial standard. Apple would not block the NYT app if they used it to publish an editorial titled "Assad is a Jerk".

I don't see why a game that happens to portray the same opinion should be looked as different. Also the sort of people who we typically have editorializing about editorials do so because they happen to also be the types that read editorials; if they had any exposure to these games they'd complain about them too. I thought we for the mast part had societal value that considered freedom to express our opinions a virtue? Yes some of them are simplistic, and uniformed. I come back to so what?

I don't think it laudable of Apple to run a market place that actively bars goods and services that happen to express opinions, about real things. Doubly so when its terribly inconsistent about when and on what those rules are actually enforced. Yes they have right to do it; just I chose not to participate.

Because blocking the NYT app doesn't put them on one side or the other of a political crisis where people are living or dying.

Why is it that people who have evaded authorities find it irresistible to gloat about how "clever" they are to have outwitted cops. I get it, maybe eventually talk about it in an autobiography, but he may technically still be evading said authorities. He might as well say, "nanna nanna booboo, come and get me!".

He's monologuing. That's the downfall of every evil villain.

In this case, he's probably more of a rich, paranoid nutbag than anything. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he's not helping his case any and I'm not going to vouch for the authorities in Belize, either.

As a Mac user I know the feeling, but what would you even acquire by trying to game on Linux? There is Macs for unixy world and it has better support than Linux will ever will. Of course Windows is the best platform but mostly because they have things like XNA and.NET. Microsoft has really played their game well. But why on Linux rather than Mac? While Crossover isn't supporting all the games it's at least better and many games have Mac Ports? So if you want to do both unixy world and games why not Mac?

The only good thing about this is the feeling that maybe Mac ports become more frequent too, but I'm not putting lot into that hope as far as Linux support goes.

Valve isn't the problem here - they've been good about bringing their AAA content to Mac and keeping it supported. I expect that they will continue to do the same with Linux.

The problem is that they are the distributors (through Steam) for a bunch of publishers that aren't Mac friendly. However, this gives them a reason to change, if they want to. Some of them can't afford to, some of them just won't and some of them will even be dickbags about it.

A lot of those same publishers are willing to be completely mediocre in their support and decide that supporting Windows is enough. Valve apparently looked at the situation, said "Windows 8 WTF" and is moving to expand their offerings so that maybe one day they can laugh in Ballmer's balloon-shaped face.

> Then don't worry about it because the rate of error propagation due to aging for physical media is orders of magnitude greater than that of media stored on the Internet.

The rate of corporate revocation of access rights to cloud-based storage is much higher than the rate of bitrot at the moment. Amazon is awesome, but they won't be around forever. My Britney Spears collection (when I say Britney Spears, I mean King Crimson) will be safely enjoyed by my spawn, whereas I'm pretty sure my bad sci-fi novel collection won't be (no matter how you slice it).

No, but I can imagine a change to the legal system limiting the liability of the manufacturers of self-driving cars.

If we could know that self-driving cars reduce accidents by 95% (a not unrealistic amount), it would be morally wrong for us to not put them on the road. If the only hurdle the manufacturers had left was the liability issue, then it would be morally wrong for Congress to not change the laws.

Of course, Congress has been morally bankrupt since, oh, about 1789, so I doubt that they'll see this as an imperative. On the other hand, I do imagine the car makers paying lobbyists and making campaign contributions to ensure that self-driving car manufacturers are exempted from these lawsuits, so it could still happen.

If corporations have the same rights as people in our framework of laws, why should they not be subject to the same penalties, including the death penalty (in those jurisdictions that have it)? By limiting the liability of a corporation, you are placing a higher value on it's survival than an actual person.

Limited liability is fine, as long as the corporation is viewed as a collection of persons who can be held individually responsible for malfeasance, but the moment you equate the corporation to a person, in any sense, it should suffer the same consequences along with the privileges.